RSS

The Jeconiah Curse and the Virgin Birth

19 Apr

One of the most interesting questions I have heard from a Jew is: “How can Jesus be the Messiah, if his genealogical line comes through Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12)? God had cursed the Jeconiah line in that none of his descendants could inherit the throne. As far as God is concerned, the Jeconiah line is childless (Jeremiah 22:28-30).” Furthermore, one Jew I spoke with said the problem is even greater, because even if one could show that Jesus’ line is through Jeconiah, the fact that he is not Joseph’s son by marriage would make him a mamzer (bastard), so he could not inherit anything that was his mother’s husband’s.

Now, off hand, I see two problems with this line of thinking. First of all, God says Solomon’s line ended with Jeconiah. Not only did he curse the line, but Scripture says the king’s sons would become eunuchs in the land of Babylon (2Kings 20:16-18; cp. Daniel 1:3). So, Solomon’s line ended when Zedekiah’s sons were killed and Jeconiah’s son’s were made eunuchs in Babylon. Therefore, something obviously must be done in order for God to keep his promise to David. If the Jeconiah problem cannot be solved, then the Jews could never have a Messiah. Therefore, the “Jeconiah-curse” argument is of little concern, since God will keep his promise to David. All we need to do is wait and see what he does.

Secondly, setting aside for a moment the argument that the Law could view Jesus as a mamzer, if the mamzer thing was such a big deal in the Law, so that such a child could never inherit either by adoption or by gift, how is it that the Scriptures record Tamar having a mamzer child through the patriarch, Judah? Tamar was the wife of Judah’s eldest son, but when two of his three sons died without giving her a child, he promised her his youngest son. However, he later had second thoughts and reneged on his word. The story goes that she dressed up as a harlot and waited for her father-in-law to pass by on his way to shear his sheep. Judah saw her and went in unto her, never recognizing her due to the veil upon her face. Long-story-short, when he realized who she was and that she was pregnant with his child, he confessed she was more righteous than he was. Nevertheless, he never took her as his wife and never went in unto her again. Is this not a mamzer (bastard), according to how we view things today? Apparently, it wasn’t seen this way at that time, but the point is: how can anyone today judge Jesus as a mamzer (bastard) when, obviously, other matters were taken into consideration under some circumstances and according to the Law, which would nullify our interpretation of such a relationship today?

If we return to the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, understanding that Solomon’s line is now dead, cursed by God and the remnants made eunuchs in Babylon, we must now look for God to keep his promise to David through another line. There is a tradition that Jeconiah adopted Pedaiah and Shealtiel (cp. Matthew 1:12 & Luke 3:27), which were sons of the line of Nathan, the brother and next in line to Solomon. Therefore, the Jeconiah-curse thing becomes moot, if Pedaiah and Shealtiel were not his sons from his own body. They are his sons by adoption, and Matthew’s genealogy from Shealtiel onward physically originates from the line of Nathan to David, just as Luke’s line does.

The New Testament offers two genealogies for Jesus. Tradition holds that Luke records Jesus’ line through Mary. This would have to be so, because, although according to Jewish understanding there was no inheritance through the woman, the inheritance of the family line does come through her if her parents had no sons. There would be absolutely no reason for Luke to record the genealogy of Joseph’s mother’s line, but Mary’s line is needed to show Jesus’ blood line back to David. It is probable that Joseph’s and Mary’s marriage was arranged to raise up a son for the inheritance of her father’s line. Therefore, if the matter of the Jeconiah-curse is still deemed in force, even though his sons are adopted and not of his body, the new royal line (Nathan’s) would come through Mary. So, no matter which line one would choose, Jesus line by blood to David went through Mary and he inherits the throne thereby; or Jesus line by adoption goes through Joseph and by virtue of his being the firstborn son of Mary, he inherits Joseph’s line as well.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements
 
4 Comments

Posted by on April 19, 2010 in Jesus, Religion

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

4 responses to “The Jeconiah Curse and the Virgin Birth

  1. Eddie

    August 5, 2010 at 08:36

    Game? I am sure I don’t know what you mean. The truth is what it is. One either believes it or one does not. Of course, anyone may theorize or claim many things about anything without evidence of his statements and claim what he says is true, but simply saying something doesn’t make what one says truth. I’ll have to read your blog to get a handle on where you are coming from, but I welcome comments pro and con, and thank you for reading and commenting upon my post. Have a good day.

     
    • Sri Rama Lama Ding Dong

      August 8, 2010 at 15:03

      My use of the word ‘game’ was simply an expression of what I’ve gleaned from my own research of ancient religions, the writings of Hermes, and variances between the ‘official’ Bible descriptions of Jesus and the teachings and what is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gnostic Gospels found at Nag Hammadi. The two latter mentioned were hidden away during a period when the Church of Rome ordered all books it considered heretical to be destroyed. Certain Christian sects believed those Gospels to be so important they hid them and centuries past until they were found. I also refer to the Council at Nicea where what would be considered part of the Canon and that which would be discarded was decided. Again this was maneuvering on the part of the Church of Rome (Catholic Church).

      Recently, Dan Brown, who authored the Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, opened the door for lots of speculation on the matter of Jesus, his existence, the supposed escape of Mary Magdalene to Southern France, and whether Jesus actually died on the cross. This is currently reflected in numerous books being printed on these general topics and more. After having read many of them I do conclude that there is some truth to some of these claims and a lot more poor research leading to ridiculous conclusions. As many take the content of a book uncritically, this leads to mass misconceptions and other unfortunate outcomes.

      As to the Truth. I agree It Is What It Is.

      As to my blog, it started as a spoof on the whole human consciousness movement, enlightenment, transformation and so forth. This area has always interested me and I found sufficient nonsense to put on waders and get waist deep into it so I could poke some fun at it. Recently, I decided that wasn’t what I really wanted to as the entire area of Faith, Love, Belief, Messiahs, Jesus, the Catholic Church, and the methods under which truth is transmitted or twisted became more interesting. Consequently, my blog is in transition and some of what’s there will disappear and be replaced with open discussion of the aforementioned topics.

      All the best.

       
      • Eddie

        August 8, 2010 at 17:17

        Hello again and thank you for stopping by and commenting. I enjoy replying whether or not I agree with my readers. You can probably guess I would not agree with your point of view. To do so, I would have to delete my entire blog. :-)
        You have a generous view of who is Christian. I do not agree that Gnosticism is a sect of Christianity. Simply because they mention the name Jesus does not make them his followers. If that were true, there is a whole group of Biblical scholars—atheists, mind you—who could call themselves Christian! Some people are willing to make their reputation and generous living off Jesus’ name by writing counter to what he said and did. Gnosticism falls within this category, in my opinion. So, while the Nag Hammadi is a valuable resource for many reasons, it has absolutely no connection to real Christianity, more than being its rival.
        You seem to have an axe to grind over Roman Catholicism. I don’t. I am not a Catholic, but I consider them brethren. Indeed, corruption infiltrated the church in later centuries, especially since Constantine. I am a believer in the truism that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Political power and following Jesus do not mix well. We would probably agree about many things concerning our corrupt history, however we would draw different conclusions about what it all meant.
        As far the Da Vinci Code etc. is concerned—mega bucks! Need I say more? Do you honestly believe the truth is financially profitable? Hollywood is full of people with active imaginations who have made fortunes revealing what they postulate. A blockbuster and the real truth, however, are seldom bedfellows.
        Again I appreciate your interest in my blog and especially for the fact that you have also stopped by to share your personal views. We don’t agree on everything, but we can have some fun sharing together. I hope your interest in reconstructing your blog works out to your liking. Have a great evening.

        Eddie

         
  2. Sri Rama Lama Ding Dong

    August 5, 2010 at 04:36

    Nicely done post putting one of the many myths about Jesus, the virgin birth and whether Jesus was the messiah. Essentially, there has been a game of hide and seek being played with the truth about Jesus, the teachings, and the mythology surrounding him going on since the early first century. I believe I’m going to like this blog for sound research and cogent remarks.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: